** This site uses the common bold common name/italisized scientific name pattern. Of note is the last example which uses an abbreviated genus (A.) --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 01:23, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

** This site uses the common bold common name/italisized scientific name pattern. Of note is the last example which uses an abbreviated genus (A.) --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 01:23, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

-

** "<nowiki><em></nowiki>" and "<nowiki><strong></nowiki>" should not be used (according to a lengthy debate on a web authoring forum some time ago), because text thus marked will be emphasised/ "shouted" verbally in an aural browser or text reader. Either <nowiki><i></nowiki>/ <nowiki><b></nowiki> should be used, or a style with italicised/ heavier-font-weight text, or both (the later happens on the West Midland Bird Club website). [[User:AndyMabbett|AndyMabbett]] 01:30, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

+

** "<nowiki><em></nowiki>" and "<nowiki><strong></nowiki>" should not be used (according to a lengthy debate on a web authoring forum some time ago), because text thus marked will be emphasised/ "shouted" verbally in an aural browser or text reader. Either <nowiki><i></nowiki>/ <nowiki><b></nowiki> should be used, or a style with italicised/ heavier-font-weight text, or both (the later happens on the West Midland Bird Club website). [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 01:30, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

*** I agree regarding the use of &lt;i&gt; over &lt;em&gt; as the italisizing of a scientific name is not necessarily an emphasis. However, I believe the use of &lt;strong&gt; is valid as the intent is to emphasise the content, drawing the reader's eye. I see no problem with strong content being emphasised aurally. I am comfortable with the use of &lt;i&gt; tags for scientific names as they are often referred to a Latin names (even though they are not necessarily Latin) and could be considered a form of ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages Italic language]'' --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 09:49, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

*** I agree regarding the use of &lt;i&gt; over &lt;em&gt; as the italisizing of a scientific name is not necessarily an emphasis. However, I believe the use of &lt;strong&gt; is valid as the intent is to emphasise the content, drawing the reader's eye. I see no problem with strong content being emphasised aurally. I am comfortable with the use of &lt;i&gt; tags for scientific names as they are often referred to a Latin names (even though they are not necessarily Latin) and could be considered a form of ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages Italic language]'' --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 09:49, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

-

****There is no "reader's eye" in an aural browser or text reader! Try reading a page with such names emboldened and speaking "strongly" (i.e. raising your voice slightly) each time you say one. Preferably in a busy office ;-) [[User:AndyMabbett|AndyMabbett]] 10:58, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

+

****There is no "reader's eye" in an aural browser or text reader! Try reading a page with such names emboldened and speaking "strongly" (i.e. raising your voice slightly) each time you say one. Preferably in a busy office ;-) [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 10:58, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

*****True, there is no reader's eye, but aural properties can be [http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access#ACSS styled with CSS]. Better to use stylesheets to change the style of the content rather than demand a change in markup. Remember, microformats are supposed to be based on existing markup practices where possible. --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 03:28, 31 Oct 2006 (PST)

*****True, there is no reader's eye, but aural properties can be [http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access#ACSS styled with CSS]. Better to use stylesheets to change the style of the content rather than demand a change in markup. Remember, microformats are supposed to be based on existing markup practices where possible. --[[User:CharlesRoper|Charles Roper]] 03:28, 31 Oct 2006 (PST)

+

*[[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 10:58, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

+

***** How widely supported is aural styling? And yes, you're right about existing mark-up practices; but I was explaining why those practices are wrong, not that uFs should change them. [[User:AndyMabbett|AndyMabbett]] 06:25, 31 Oct 2006 (PST)

===To do===

===To do===

Revision as of 14:25, 31 October 2006

Note: the original name of the proposed microformat, "species", is likely to change, probably to "biota" or "taxon". The former has been retained here, to avoid having to make many repetitive and perhaps redundant edits

The shallow scrapes are now home to many <strong>dragonflies</strong> and <strong>damselflies</strong>

Comments

Occurrences of common bird names are consistently bolded <b> and given a class of "bird". Occurrences of scientific names are consistently italisized <i> and given a class name of "sci". Common plant names are bolded and given a class name of "plant". In the last example, common insect names (in this case at the order rank) are tagged with <strong>. - Charles Roper

Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre

include a <strong>White Admiral</strong> (<i>Limenitis camilla</i>), an <i><a href="http://www.britishspiders.org.uk/html/nbn.php?spn=375">Araneus angulatus</a></i>,

All common names are in strong elements, the species is in an italic element,
with resolution as link text, which turns out to be a fairly consistent
convention on this particular site.

Comments

Again, some part of the resolution is the link text to a resource presumably considered authoritative. Resembles tagging. This particular site also puts common names in a strong tag, with the species in an italic tag.

No, it's not necessarily an authoritative resource; it's just a link to a site I consider useful for those seeking further information on this species. - Charles Roper

The use of an italicized scientific name is a very common convention, particularly in printed media but also online. The use of strong names is also a common convention, particularly online, as it helps readers scan a page quickly for species they are interested in. Further examples of this convention can be found here:

This site uses the common bold common name/italisized scientific name pattern. Of note is the last example which uses an abbreviated genus (A.) --Charles Roper 01:23, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

"<em>" and "<strong>" should not be used (according to a lengthy debate on a web authoring forum some time ago), because text thus marked will be emphasised/ "shouted" verbally in an aural browser or text reader. Either <i>/ <b> should be used, or a style with italicised/ heavier-font-weight text, or both (the later happens on the West Midland Bird Club website). Andy Mabbett 01:30, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

I agree regarding the use of <i> over <em> as the italisizing of a scientific name is not necessarily an emphasis. However, I believe the use of <strong> is valid as the intent is to emphasise the content, drawing the reader's eye. I see no problem with strong content being emphasised aurally. I am comfortable with the use of <i> tags for scientific names as they are often referred to a Latin names (even though they are not necessarily Latin) and could be considered a form of Italic language --Charles Roper 09:49, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

There is no "reader's eye" in an aural browser or text reader! Try reading a page with such names emboldened and speaking "strongly" (i.e. raising your voice slightly) each time you say one. Preferably in a busy office ;-) Andy Mabbett 10:58, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

True, there is no reader's eye, but aural properties can be styled with CSS. Better to use stylesheets to change the style of the content rather than demand a change in markup. Remember, microformats are supposed to be based on existing markup practices where possible. --Charles Roper 03:28, 31 Oct 2006 (PST)

How widely supported is aural styling? And yes, you're right about existing mark-up practices; but I was explaining why those practices are wrong, not that uFs should change them. AndyMabbett 06:25, 31 Oct 2006 (PST)

To do

TODO: remove, or at least
coalesce free text examples. create a commonalities section. BenWest 22:20, 21 Oct 2006 (PDT)TODO:
I've been working down the examples list, item by item to
reorganize by publisher, like the other *-examples pages have done. So far,
I've gone from the top of binominals to the top of the Plant section. It's a
Saturday night and time to have some fun so.... If someone continues this work
before I get a chance to continue, please note where you left off. BenWest 22:20, 21 Oct 2006 (PDT)

Alternative Grouping By Strategy

I'd like to regroup these examples... perhaps by publishing strategy instead of a list of what is being published. Should this be available as an alternate grouping section? In the mean time, a grouping by publisher would help analysis go smoother. BenWest 17:57, 21 Oct 2006 (PDT)

I looked at several examples. Several of them feel like tagging to me. Should we attempt to note what level or resolution is available in each example?